In computing, the term virtual directory has a couple of meanings. It may simply designate (for example in IIS) a folder which appears in a path but which is not actually a subfolder of the preceding folder in the path. However, this article will discuss the term in the context of directory services and identity management. A virtual directory or virtual directory server (VDS) in this context is a software layer that delivers a single access point for identity management applications and service platforms. A virtual directory operates as a high-performance, lightweight abstraction layer that resides between client applications and disparate types of identity-data repositories, such as proprietary and standard directories, databases, web services, and applications. A virtual directory receives queries and directs them to the appropriate data sources by abstracting and virtualizing data. The virtual directory integrates identity data from multiple heterogeneous data stores and presents it as though it were coming from one source. This ability to reach into disparate repositories makes virtual directory technology ideal for consolidating data stored in a distributed environment. As of 2011, virtual directory servers most commonly use the LDAP protocol, but more sophisticated virtual directories can also support SQL as well as DSML and SPML. Industry experts have heralded the importance of the virtual directory in modernizing the identity infrastructure. According to Dave Kearns of Network World, "Virtualization is hot and a virtual directory is the building block, or foundation, you should be looking at for your next identity management project." In addition, Gartner analyst, Bob Blakley said that virtual directories are playing an increasingly vital role. In his report, “The Emerging Architecture of Identity Management,” Blakley wrote: “In the first phase, production of identities will be separated from consumption of identities through the introduction of a virtual directory interface.” == Capabilities == Virtual directories can have some or all of the following capabilities: Aggregate identity data across sources to create a single point of access. Create high-availability for authoritative data stores. Act as identity firewall by preventing denial-of-service attacks on the primary data stores through an additional virtual layer. Support a common searchable namespace for centralized authentication. Present a unified virtual view of user information stored across multiple systems. Delegate authentication to backend sources through source-specific security means. Virtualize data sources to support migration from legacy data stores without modifying the applications that rely on them. Enrich identities with attributes pulled from multiple data stores, based on a link between user entries. Some advanced identity virtualization platforms can also: Enable application-specific, customized views of identity data without violating internal or external regulations governing identity data. Reveal contextual relationships between objects through hierarchical directory structures. Develop advanced correlation across diverse sources using correlation rules. Build a global user identity by correlating unique user accounts across various data stores, and enrich identities with attributes pulled from multiple data stores, based on a link between user entries. Enable constant data refresh for real-time updates through a persistent cache. == Advantages == Virtual directories: Enable faster deployment because users do not need to add and sync additional application-specific data sources Leverage existing identity infrastructure and security investments to deploy new services Deliver high availability of data sources Provide application-specific views of identity data which can help avoid the need to develop a master enterprise schema Allow a single view of identity data without violating internal or external regulations governing identity data Act as identity firewalls by preventing denial-of-service attacks on the primary data-stores and providing further security on access to sensitive data Can reflect changes made to authoritative sources in real-time Leverages existing update processes of authoritative sources, so no separate (sometimes manual) process to update a central directory is needed Present a unified virtual view of user information from multiple systems so that it appears to reside in a single system Can secure all backend storage locations with a single security policy == Disadvantages == An original disadvantage is public perception of "push & pull technologies" which is the general classification of "virtual directories" depending on the nature of their deployment. Virtual directories were initially designed and later deployed with "push technologies" in mind, which also contravened with privacy laws of the United States. This is no longer the case. There are, however, other disadvantages in the current technologies. The classical virtual directory based on proxy cannot modify underlying data structures or create new views based on the relationships of data from across multiple systems. So if an application requires a different structure, such as a flattened list of identities, or a deeper hierarchy for delegated administration, a virtual directory is limited. Many virtual directories cannot correlate same-users across multiple diverse sources in the case of duplicate users Virtual directories without advanced caching technologies cannot scale to heterogeneous, high-volume environments. == Sample terminology == Unify metadata: Extract schemas from the local data source, map them to a common format, and link the same identities from different data silos based on a unique identifier. Namespace joining: Create a single large directory by bringing multiple directories together at the namespace level. For instance, if one directory has the namespace "ou=internal,dc=domain,dc=com" and a second directory has the namespace "ou=external,dc=domain,dc=com," then creating a virtual directory with both namespaces is an example of namespace joining. Identity joining: Enrich identities with attributes pulled from multiple data stores, based on a link between user entries. For instance if the user joeuser exists in a directory as "cn=joeuser,ou=users" and in a database with a username of "joeuser" then the "joeuser" identity can be constructed from both the directory and the database. Data remapping: The translation of data inside of the virtual directory. For instance, mapping “uid” to “samaccountname,” so a client application that only supports a standard LDAP-compliant data source is able to search an Active Directory namespace, as well. Query routing: Route requests based on certain criteria, such as “write operations going to a master, while read operations are forwarded to replicas.” Identity routing: Virtual directories may support the routing of requests based on certain criteria (such as write operations going to a master while read operations being forwarded to replicas). Authoritative source: A "virtualized" data repository, such as a directory or database, that the virtual directory can trust for user data. Server groups: Group one or more servers containing the same data and functionality. A typical implementation is the multi-master, multi-replica environment in which replicas process "read" requests and are in one server group, while masters process "write" requests and are in another, so that servers are grouped by their response to external stimuli, even though all share the same data. == Use cases == The following are sample use cases of virtual directories: Integrating multiple directory namespaces to create a central enterprise directory. Supporting infrastructure integrations after mergers and acquisitions. Centralizing identity storage across the infrastructure, making identity information available to applications through various protocols (including LDAP, JDBC, and web services). Creating a single access point for web access management (WAM) tools. Enabling web single sign-on (SSO) across varied sources or domains. Supporting role-based, fine-grained authorization policies Enabling authentication across different security domains using each domain’s specific credential checking method. Improving secure access to information both inside and outside of the firewall.
Huawei Mobile Services
Huawei Mobile Services (HMS) is a collection of proprietary services and high level application programming interfaces (APIs) developed by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Its hub known as HMS Core serves as a toolkit for app development on Huawei devices. HMS is typically installed on Huawei devices on top of running HarmonyOS 4.x and earlier operating system on its earlier devices running the Android operating system with EMUI including devices already distributed with Google Mobile Services. Alongside, HMS Core Wear Engine for Android phones with lightweight based LiteOS wearable middleware app framework integration connectivity like notifications, status etc. HMS consists of seven key services and the HMS Core. The key services are Huawei ID, Huawei Cloud, AppGallery, Themes, Huawei Video, Browser, and Assistant. The web browser is based on Chromium. Huawei Quick Apps is the alternative to Google Instant Apps. By January 2020, over 50,000 apps had been integrated with HMS Core. Its rival, Google Mobile Services has 3 million apps on Google's Play Store. The AppGallery claimed 180 billion downloads in 2019. In March 2020, HMS was used by 650 million monthly active users across 170 countries. A Chinese phone manufacturer, LeTV, hosted a smartphone business communication meeting in Beijing on September 27, 2021, to demonstrate its phone, the LeTV S1. This was the first smartphone from a third-party manufacturer to include Huawei Mobile Services (HMS). == HMS on Android and HarmonyOS == Huawei Mobile Services on Android goes all the way back to August 2016 as Huawei ID services for phones, basic functionalities for Huawei P9 series. However, in May 2019 proved to be a significant change to HMS when Google was prohibited from working with Huawei on any new devices extending ecosystem for AppGallery store front launched in April 2018, year prior. This also included bundling Google's Apps, including Gmail, Maps and YouTube. Any new Huawei devices launched after 16 May 2019 were unable to receive updates from Google services and would be considered 'uncertified' meaning Huawei's only solution at the time was to turn HMS into a genuine competitor to Google and incentivize app developers to utilize the platform. Huawei officially launched Huawei Mobile Services in China on December 24, 2019, as a beta. Huawei expanded Huawei Mobile Services in Europe in February 2020 and other markets in Asia, Latin America, Middle East & Africa, Canada, Mexico followed outside banned US market. HMS is available on the Honor 9X Pro, View 30 Pro, Huawei Mate XS. HMS is also available, alongside GMS, on many other Huawei models launched before the ban. Huawei promised developers it would take, “less than 10 minutes", to port their app over to HMS - to illustrate the ease of portability between Google's Play Store and the HMS AppGallery. On January 15, 2020, HMS Core 4.0 (Huawei Mobile Services Core 4.0) was officially launched. Huawei announced that at this time, there were already 1.3 million developers and 55,000 applications on board. The next day, Huawei held a developer day event in London and invested £20 million to encourage developers in the United Kingdom and Ireland to use HMS. On July 15, 2021, Huawei expanded HMS with classic HarmonyOS dual-framework that provided Java support and eventually with JavaScript and ArkTS (eTS) language support with HMS Core 6.0 for app development with primarily Android apps, alongside limited HAP imperative developed based apps that shares AOSP file system libraries in all types of devices from smartphones, tablets, smart screens, smartwatches, and car machines. Including various third-party development frameworks, such as React Native, Cordova, etc. At HDC 2023, Huawei unveiled HarmonyOS 5, marking a total break from the hybrid Android derived platform. This shift replaced the legacy Android and classic HarmonyOS-based HMS SDK with a full native API developer kit SDK built solely on OpenHarmony. The architecture moved from middleware services to vertical integration path. In this new model, HMS Core libraries are no longer external add-ons but are bundled directly into the system and DevEco Studio as native HarmonyOS Kits. == HMS Core == HMS Core is a hub for Huawei Mobile Services and serves as a toolkit for app development on Huawei devices. The core comprises Development, Growth and Monetizing and was created as a replacement for Google Mobile Services (GMS) Core. HMS core services were available in more than 55,000 apps in June 2020; HMS Core 5.0 debuted in September 2020. HMS Core 6.0 was launched in June 2021 with extended support for Huawei Cloud services. In June 2021, the number of registered developers within the HMS ecosystem was 4 million, and the number of apps integrated with the HMS Core had reached 134,000. As of July 2022, registered developers within HMS ecosystem had grown to 5 million, and the number of apps integrated with the HMS Core reached 203,000. The number of apps had grown to 220,000 by 30 September 2022. == AppGallery == The AppGallery has a key rival, Google's Play Store on Android. The AppGallery is available in 170 countries, across 78 languages. == Reception == The reception of HMS is mixed, with the majority of discussion based around the key Google/Android apps which are not yet present on the AppGallery and whether or not this presents a significant problem to users. The open development of HMS Core has been regarded by some as benefiting the Android project as a whole, "If Huawei continues to invest in a holistically open approach ... the result could be that we could all end up a bit less beholden to Google".
Data product
In data management and product management, a data product is a reusable, active, and standardized data asset designed to deliver measurable value to its users, whether internal or external, by applying the rigorous principles of product thinking and management. It comprises one or more data artifacts (e.g., datasets, models, pipelines) and is enriched with metadata, including governance policies, data quality rules, data contracts, and, where applicable, a software bill of materials (SBOM) to document its dependencies and components. Ownership of a data product is aligned to a specific domain or use case, ensuring accountability, stewardship, and its continuous evolution throughout its lifecycle. Adhering to the FAIR principles – findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable – a data product is designed to be discoverable, scalable, reusable, and aligned with both business and regulatory standards, driving innovation and efficiency in modern data ecosystems. == History == In 2012, DJ Patil proposed the first documented definition: a data product is a product that facilitates an end goal through the use of data. In 2019, Zhamak Dehghani introduced Data Mesh, with a strong focus on domain-oriented data products. Later, in 2020, she solidifies Data Mesh around four principles, one being Data as a Product, in which she defines Data Product as the node on the mesh that encapsulates three structural components required for its function, providing access to the domain's analytical data as a product. In 2024, Andrea Gioia published one of the first books specifically on data products post Data Mesh announcement. In his book, Gioia defines the concept of pure data product. In 2025, during the Data Day Texas conference, Jean-Georges Perrin and a collective of product managers and data engineers got together to craft the current definition and make it available to the public domain. In July 2025, Bitol, a project of The Linux Foundation, released and early version of the Open Data Product Standard (ODPS) aiming at normalizing data products
Data verification
Data verification is a process in which different types of data are checked for accuracy and inconsistencies after data migration is done. In some domains it is referred to Source Data Verification (SDV), such as in clinical trials. Data verification helps to determine whether data was accurately translated when data is transferred from one source to another, is complete, and supports processes in the new system. During verification, there may be a need for a parallel run of both systems to identify areas of disparity and forestall erroneous data loss. Methods for data verification include double data entry, proofreading and automated verification of data. Proofreading data involves someone checking the data entered against the original document. This is also time-consuming and costly. Automated verification of data can be achieved using one way hashes locally or through use of a SaaS based service such as Q by SoLVBL to provide immutable seals to allow verification of the original data.
Defence Information Infrastructure
Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) is a secure military network owned by the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence MOD. It is used by all branches of the armed forces, including the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force as well as MOD civil servants. It reaches to deployed bases and ships at sea, but not to aircraft in flight. In 2000, the MOD began to plan the systems replacement project. In March 2005, the MOD gave a contract to the Atlas Consortium, with EDS as prime contractor, for installation and management over 10 years. That has developed into a consortium made up of DXC Technology (formerly EDS), Fujitsu, Airbus Defence and Space (formerly EADS Defence & Security) and CGI (formerly Logica). Starting in May 2016, MOD users of DII begin to migrate to the New Style of IT within the defence to be known as MODNET; again supported by ATLAS. == Overview == DII supports 2,000 MOD sites with some 150,000 terminals (desktops and laptops) and 300,000 user accounts. It is designed to offer a high level of resilience, flexibility, and security in the provision of connectivity from ‘business space to battlespace’ in MOD offices in the UK, bases overseas, at sea, and on the front line. It aims to rationalise and improve IT provision for the defence sector in the 21st century; involving a major culture change for MOD users and their ways of working through a structure of shared working areas with controlled security and access. It should provide a records management system and search facility together with a range of office services. It hosts several hundred COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) and bespoke MOD applications from a range of suppliers judged to meet the required security standards. The network handles alphanumeric data, graphics, and video. The system carries information from Restricted to above-Secret levels, but users are able to see only the data and applications for which they are authorised. == Incremental approach == In order to de-risk the programme Atlas and the MOD took an incremental approach to the development and implementation of DII, with a separate contract for each increment. The extended timeline allowed the MOD flexibility in defining its requirements. Increment 1: Contract awarded March 2005. This covered 70,000 user access devices (UADs) and 200,000 user accounts in the Restricted and Secret domains in 680 fixed locations. Increment 2a: Contract awarded December 2006. This was for an additional 44,000 UADs and 58,000 user accounts in the Restricted and Secret domains, again in fixed locations. Increment 2b: Contract awarded September 2007: This extended DII(F) into the deployed environment with the provision of UADs to support land and maritime deployed operations. Increment 2c: Signed in January 2009. This extended the DII footprint into the above-Secret domain to support a number of key operations and intelligence initiatives. Increment 3a: Contract awarded January 2010. Atlas provided 42,000 UADs operating in the Restricted and Secret domains to the remaining MOD fixed sites. This supported some 60,000 personnel, notably within the RAF, at Joint Helicopter Command and other MOD locations. Increment 3a received an MOD Chief of Defence Materiel commendation. == Costs and transparency == The Ministry of Defence informed Parliament the system would cost £2.3bn, even though it knew the cost would be at least £5.8bn. By 2008 the programme was running at least 18 months late; had delivered only 29,000 of a contracted 63,000 terminals; and had delivered none of the contracted Secret capability. In January 2010 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence announced that the Ministry of Defence had authorised DII increment 3a at a cost of around £540 million to provide 42,000 terminals within the RAF and at Joint Helicopter Command. He stated that the project would deliver "benefits" worth over £1.6 billion over the 10 years of the contract. That year the project was scheduled to cost at least £7bn, however, the UK government said it might attempt to reduce this sum. By 2014 the rollout of all UK terminals was complete and a refresh of the original desktops and printers to new hardware underway. The overseas rollout was coming to an end and well over half the fleet, including aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, equipped. The final part of Secret capability deployment was scheduled to complete in summer of 2014.
Sample complexity
The sample complexity of a machine learning algorithm represents the number of training-samples that it needs in order to successfully learn a target function. More precisely, the sample complexity is the number of training-samples that we need to supply to the algorithm, so that the function returned by the algorithm is within an arbitrarily small error of the best possible function, with probability arbitrarily close to 1. There are two variants of sample complexity: The weak variant fixes a particular input-output distribution; The strong variant takes the worst-case sample complexity over all input-output distributions. The No free lunch theorem, discussed below, proves that, in general, the strong sample complexity is infinite, i.e. that there is no algorithm that can learn the globally-optimal target function using a finite number of training samples. However, if we are only interested in a particular class of target functions (e.g., only linear functions) then the sample complexity is finite, and it depends linearly on the VC dimension on the class of target functions. == Definition == Let X {\displaystyle X} be a space which we call the input space, and Y {\displaystyle Y} be a space which we call the output space, and let Z {\displaystyle Z} denote the product X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} . For example, in the setting of binary classification, X {\displaystyle X} is typically a finite-dimensional vector space and Y {\displaystyle Y} is the set { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{-1,1\}} . Fix a hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} of functions h : X → Y {\displaystyle h\colon X\to Y} . A learning algorithm over H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is a computable map from Z {\displaystyle Z} to H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . In other words, it is an algorithm that takes as input a finite sequence of training samples and outputs a function from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . Typical learning algorithms include empirical risk minimization, without or with Tikhonov regularization. Fix a loss function L : Y × Y → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}\colon Y\times Y\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} , for example, the square loss L ( y , y ′ ) = ( y − y ′ ) 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}(y,y')=(y-y')^{2}} , where h ( x ) = y ′ {\displaystyle h(x)=y'} . For a given distribution ρ {\displaystyle \rho } on X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} , the expected risk of a hypothesis (a function) h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} is E ( h ) := E ρ [ L ( h ( x ) , y ) ] = ∫ X × Y L ( h ( x ) , y ) d ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}(h):=\mathbb {E} _{\rho }[{\mathcal {L}}(h(x),y)]=\int _{X\times Y}{\mathcal {L}}(h(x),y)\,d\rho (x,y)} In our setting, we have h = A ( S n ) {\displaystyle h={\mathcal {A}}(S_{n})} , where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is a learning algorithm and S n = ( ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ) ∼ ρ n {\displaystyle S_{n}=((x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n}))\sim \rho ^{n}} is a sequence of vectors which are all drawn independently from ρ {\displaystyle \rho } . Define the optimal risk E H ∗ = inf h ∈ H E ( h ) . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}={\underset {h\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\inf }}{\mathcal {E}}(h).} Set h n = A ( S n ) {\displaystyle h_{n}={\mathcal {A}}(S_{n})} , for each sample size n {\displaystyle n} . h n {\displaystyle h_{n}} is a random variable and depends on the random variable S n {\displaystyle S_{n}} , which is drawn from the distribution ρ n {\displaystyle \rho ^{n}} . The algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is called consistent if E ( h n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})} probabilistically converges to E H ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}} . In other words, for all ϵ , δ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon ,\delta >0} , there exists a positive integer N {\displaystyle N} , such that, for all sample sizes n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} , we have Pr ρ n [ E ( h n ) − E H ∗ ≥ ε ] < δ . {\displaystyle \Pr _{\rho ^{n}}[{\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})-{\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}\geq \varepsilon ]<\delta .} The sample complexity of A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is then the minimum N {\displaystyle N} for which this holds, as a function of ρ , ϵ {\displaystyle \rho ,\epsilon } , and δ {\displaystyle \delta } . We write the sample complexity as N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} to emphasize that this value of N {\displaystyle N} depends on ρ , ϵ {\displaystyle \rho ,\epsilon } , and δ {\displaystyle \delta } . If A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is not consistent, then we set N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) = ∞ {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )=\infty } . If there exists an algorithm for which N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} is finite, then we say that the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is learnable. In others words, the sample complexity N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} defines the rate of consistency of the algorithm: given a desired accuracy ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } and confidence δ {\displaystyle \delta } , one needs to sample N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} data points to guarantee that the risk of the output function is within ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } of the best possible, with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } . In probably approximately correct (PAC) learning, one is concerned with whether the sample complexity is polynomial, that is, whether N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} is bounded by a polynomial in 1 / ϵ {\displaystyle 1/\epsilon } and 1 / δ {\displaystyle 1/\delta } . If N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} is polynomial for some learning algorithm, then one says that the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is PAC-learnable. This is a stronger notion than being learnable. == Unrestricted hypothesis space: infinite sample complexity == One can ask whether there exists a learning algorithm so that the sample complexity is finite in the strong sense, that is, there is a bound on the number of samples needed so that the algorithm can learn any distribution over the input-output space with a specified target error. More formally, one asks whether there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} , such that, for all ϵ , δ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon ,\delta >0} , there exists a positive integer N {\displaystyle N} such that for all n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} , we have sup ρ ( Pr ρ n [ E ( h n ) − E H ∗ ≥ ε ] ) < δ , {\displaystyle \sup _{\rho }\left(\Pr _{\rho ^{n}}[{\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})-{\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}\geq \varepsilon ]\right)<\delta ,} where h n = A ( S n ) {\displaystyle h_{n}={\mathcal {A}}(S_{n})} , with S n = ( ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ) ∼ ρ n {\displaystyle S_{n}=((x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n}))\sim \rho ^{n}} as above. The No Free Lunch Theorem says that without restrictions on the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} , this is not the case, i.e., there always exist "bad" distributions for which the sample complexity is arbitrarily large. Thus, in order to make statements about the rate of convergence of the quantity sup ρ ( Pr ρ n [ E ( h n ) − E H ∗ ≥ ε ] ) , {\displaystyle \sup _{\rho }\left(\Pr _{\rho ^{n}}[{\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})-{\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}\geq \varepsilon ]\right),} one must either constrain the space of probability distributions ρ {\displaystyle \rho } , e.g. via a parametric approach, or constrain the space of hypotheses H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} , as in distribution-free approaches. == Restricted hypothesis space: finite sample-complexity == The latter approach leads to concepts such as VC dimension and Rademacher complexity which control the complexity of the space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . A smaller hypothesis space introduces more bias into the inference process, meaning that E H ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}} may be greater than the best possible risk in a larger space. However, by restricting the complexity of the hypothesis space it becomes possible for an algorithm to produce more uniformly consistent functions. This trade-off leads to the concept of regularization. It is a theorem from VC theory that the following three statements are equivalent for a hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} : H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is PAC-learnable. The VC dimension of H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is finite. H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is a uniform Glivenko-Cantelli class. This gives a way to prove that certain hypothesis spaces are PAC learnable, and by extension, learnable. === An example of a PAC-learnable hypothesis space === X = R d , Y = { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle X=\mathbb {R} ^{d},Y=\{-1,1\}} , and let H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be the space of affine functions on X {\displaystyle X} , that is, functions of the form x ↦ ⟨ w , x ⟩ + b {\displaystyle x\mapsto \langl
Pinoy baiting
Pinoy baiting is a phrase that has been used to refer to acts by non-Filipino individuals, usually celebrities or YouTubers, of posting content online purportedly with the intention of getting the attention of Filipinos, by being surprised about the Philippines or its people. Pinoy baiters are defined as giving superficial and allegedly insincere praises and similar reactions that give recognition to the Philippines or its people. Subsequent responses by Filipinos to what have been referred to as acts of Pinoy baiting have been criticized as a form of cultural cringe. This criticism would subsequently give the advice that Filipinos should not constantly require validation from non-Filipinos about themselves or their country. == Pinoy baiting mediums == === Reaction videos === On social media such as YouTube, channels with specific focus on showing their reaction towards and opinions about certain videos or topics are called reaction channels. Reaction videos are very popular and require minimal effort to create, and thus made it easy for alleged Pinoy baiting to thrive within this video-making genre. === Travel vlogs === Vlogging, short for video blogging, grew in popularity in the 2020s. Most of the popular alleged Pinoy-baiting channels tend to be vlog channels, normally following the same script under such titles as "The Philippines changed us/me", "First impression of the Philippines", "Is this really Manila?" and "Filipinos are such Kind/Good People!", and made while travelling to touristy areas such as Boracay or Bonifacio Global City and taste-testing the fast food chain Jollibee, among others. == Criticism of the phrase == Philippines-based Korean vlogger Jessica Lee had been accused by some YouTube viewers of engaging in Pinoy baiting. In a response vlog, Lee acknowledged that there may be individuals engaging in this "business strategy" of gaining views and subscribers from one of the largest communities online. However, she questioned the objectivity of some use of the phrase, citing any vlogging subject as fair game for a negative impression of being a "baiting" tool for the vlogger treating of that subject. She also invoked vloggers' freedom to choose whatever subject they want to talk about in a deep or shallow manner, while enjoining citizens to exercise their free-market right to unfollow vloggers they hate and follow those vloggers that "make them happy". She also gave her critics an explanation why she ended up vlogging about Philippine and Filipino subjects.